A Pope Cannot Preach Heresy

Can the Pope Teach Heresy? w/ Dr. Matthew Levering
Reason & Theology, 7 March 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2sUTjiJko

1:53 "Nostra Aetate is a response to the Holocaust" ...

I suppose Levering means one specific section:

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."

And surrounding.

To consider this as an adequate response about the Holocaust, supposing that is a thing, is deeply ignorant about the National Socialist régime.

Hitler couldn't have cared less whether Jews were God killers or not. He saw economic activities of certain types as parasitic or degrading for the German people. I'm not sure I'd reject the charge or agree about the measures.

When Hitler (or the NS régime) took over the company behind the Phoebus cartell or the one that produced condoms, light bulbs were not remade to last indefinitely, and condoms continued to be produced. But it's profoundly ignorant of National Socialism to pretend the Catholic traditional view of Judaism was behind the sufferings and at least sometimes deaths in the camps and just after them.

That what the Jewish authorities did back then cannot be charged against all Jews back then is forgetting that over the ensuing decades Jews chose sides. The ones of Christian persuasion are not ancestral to the Jewish community, but more like to Christian Palestinians - except for those who changed their mind.

As for it not being chargeable against Jews alive today, well, how many of them are Jews? Stephen Jay Gould and Moses Mendelsohn may not have endorsed the killing of God, like certain others, but they can hardly be called Jews either. People believing the Talmud have often taken the Yeshu of certain passages as referring to Jesus, and have therefore been, into modern times, when they were a minority of the ethnicity, endorsing the execution of the Man who is God.

But the text has other problems. Like pretending the degree in which a non-Christian religion is similar to Christianity reflects cultural progress is definitely not traditional teaching. St. Thomas put Tartars (i e Shamanists) above idolaters (including for instance Hindus and Buddhists) when it came to purity of religion, and traditionally the seeds of truth in such religions are attributed, not to cultural progress but simply to remnants of the original revelation, back between Adam and Babel.

"took over" - perhaps "ousted Jewish owners" would be more appropriate, I do not known the details of such ex-propriations

2:46 "directly and explicitly against a dogma"

Too narrow. A layman and Pope St. Celestine I identified Nestorius as teaching heresy, even though the Theotokos was not yet defined in the Council of Ephesus.

A non-traditional teaching from which heresy follows by way of syllogism is actually enough.

4:22 The Council of the Vatican, 1869 to 70, made no definitions stating that Antipopes could not teach heresy or be identified by that token.

7:26 "Syllabus of errors, which contains things in it that Newman could not accept"

How do you know he "couldn't"?

If Newman's only response was to say some things were not dogmatic, that's not stating he was not accepting it.